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

The page was originally deleted in conjunction with another when it should have been discussed on its own. Secondly, the reason given was a lack of sources, but there are now two more. 212.183.134.210 ( talk) 23:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

User:akanemoto (  | [[Talk:User:akanemoto|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) User:atsushi2 (  | [[Talk:User:atsushi2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) I create this pages. This pages include many pages and revisions. I want to see the pages. please restorning. -- Schwarz2 ( talk) 03:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)-- Akanemoto ( talk) 06:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Your own user page has changes to it every few minutes and the posts are in Chinese (I believe). Wikipedia:User page doesn't say that user pages need to be in English, but they need to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. It's not communicating anything to me but ??? -- Suntag ☼ 08:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• You did not create the pages; Akanemoto and Atsushi2 did. Keep deleted as valid use of CSD:U1. Stifle ( talk) 09:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• A check user run might resolve this. -- Suntag ☼ 17:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Valid U1s, request not made by page authors, and no real reason given to restore. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No reason given to restore, and this [1] tells its own story. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Hello, this is my first time here on this page. Apologies for any incorrect placement. This is about a page of a well known Australian Aboriginal figure that has been deleted. The Lex Wotton page was created last week and almost immediatley a member had placed a deletion request on the page with the reason given that Lex Wotton was not notable enough etc. Also he said cover article and not the person as well as saying that Wikipedia is not a soap box and not Lex Wotton's website etc. The page has been wiped and a redirection placed so it goes to 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Well for starters my input on the article and creation was for the sole reason of a notable person, well known and controversial was not yet entered into the Wikipedia database. Lex Wotton became more widely known as a result of the Palm Island riots that took place becuause of the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee, a young Palm Island Aboriginal man. Lex Wotton was then on the front page of major Australian news papers as well as a feature in some magazines. He even was on the cover of The National Indigenous Times as well as featured in other issues of the magazine [2] & [3] Wotton has appeared and spoken at various venues around Australia in its major cities about the ongoing problem of Aboriginal deaths in custody. His trial and conviction and imprisonment is well doccumented as well as being a source of controversy and debate. Indigenous activist groups around the globe have expressed their concerns and support for him. Just an example of one other. Unions, Actvists, Politicians both leftwing and right wing, have taken his plight on board. There have been rallies and protests in major cities regarding his conviction. A search via any of the major search engines will bring up many many articles as well as thousands of references. Please have a search of Lex Wotton via the search engines. What do you think ? Is he notable enough ? Is he worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia ?Your views would be greatly apreciated. Thanks. ( Electromechanic ( talk) 12:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)) reply

• Copied here from WT:DRV. lifebaka ++ 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse redirect - since it could not have been closed any other way. The predominant issue in the AfD was BLP1E, not notability. A Wikipedia biography article such as Lex Wotton requires balance between the events over the person's entire life. The one event in his life, the trial, so overwhelms the other published events in his life that the outcome could not be a balanced Wikipedia biography article. On the other hand, 2004 Palm Island death in custody now covers very little about Lex Wotton. As proposed in the AfD, I think if you start an article Trial of Lex Wotton and make the trial the main topic focus, you will overcome the BLP1E and have a place to present a significant amount of information on Lex Wotton (see Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) that now is not feasible. In short, I endorse the redirect AfD close and believe that an article entitled Trial of Lex Wotton likely would not be subject to G4 speedy deletion. -- Suntag ☼ 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, valid closure. Stifle ( talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose closure, Oppose redirect, *Take the time to investigate the profile of Lex Wotton - Firstly the person who was so keen to have the Lex Wotton article buried used the excuse of non notability. You say that "the one event in his life, the trial so overwhelms the other published events in his life" and that "the other published events in his life that the outcome could not be a balanced Wikipedia biography article. Well I beg to differ here. Lex Wotton is highly notable not only for his part and portrayal in the Palm Island Riot, not only for his trial which has attracted much controversy but also his status now as a person who major organisations and high profile people have taken on board his plight, campaigned his for release. When inserting just Lex Wotton and nothing else into the popular search engine GOOGLE , the very first thing that comes up on search is this and its also shown here below.

So if the popular search engine Google is anything to go by then the results here give an indication that there is more about Lex Wotton than just the trial or the riot. If we were to use the reasoning " The one event in his life, the trial, so overwhelms the other published events in his life that the outcome could not be a balanced Wikipedia biography article.", then it could also be said that each of these people below are notable for only one event and therefore not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

• Martin Bryant
• Schapelle Corby
• Stuart Diver

This could mean a massive clean up, deletion of other thousands and thousands of articles. But ..... Lex Wotton is not just notable for " The one event in his life, the trial" .... Is he ? Lex Wotton "events in his life", the "published events in his life" and the other events that are being published and no doubt will continue to be published as his story continues and grows. Lex Wottons life is one of multiple events as shown in the media. -- Electromechanic ( talk 10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Please be aware that deletion review is a venue for calling attention to instances where the deletion process was not followed. You have already had your chance at the AFD discussion to put forward your arguments for keeping the article. Stifle ( talk) 14:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Electromechanic, I thought my DRV comments above would help you better understand what was going on. Instead, it caused you to refute them, which isn't the purpose of DRV. I struck some of my comments above. The purposes of DRV is (i) to review whether the closer interpreted the AfD discussion incorrectly and (ii) present significant new information has come to light since a deletion discussion. The information you have presented in this DRV was available and considered at the AfD discussion, so it is not "new information that has come to light since a deletion discussion." You seem to agree that the closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly, but disagree with the outcome. Wikipedia Consensus policy allows us to disagree with the outcome, but none the less requires the project to accept to outcome. If you think a valid Wikipedia biography article can be written on Lex Wotton, feel free to develop one in your user namespace (such as at User:Electromechanic/Lex Wotton (draft)) and then return to DRV asking that the draft article be moved into article namespace. -- Suntag ☼ 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Could not have been closed any other way. Is there any reason the article Trial of Lex Wotton, recently created and looking great, wouldn't do? Also, as a note, I've changed Lex Wotton to redirect there, as it makes a lot more sense. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment The question is whether the article on someone known primarily for a crime should go under his name directly, or under a heading which does not begin with him. If the crime is truly notorious, we do use his name, otherwise we try for something with the name less promnent. I think trial of... a reasonable compromise. DGG ( talk) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure, after reviewing the AfD, I see a clear consensus to redirect, citing BLP1E concerns. With that said, I do not oppose changing the redirect to Trial of Lex Wotton, which seems to be developing quite nicely. Disclosure: I did participate in the original AfD. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 05:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC). reply

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

Dosatron, a manufacturer and distributor of chemical dispensers, is the established leader of its industry, and while previous entries written about this company have not been appropriate for Wikipedia (reading like a promotional ad, rather than a factual article), I would like the opportunity to create a new article that is in keeping with Wikipedia's quality and objectivity standards. Since Dosatron's biggest competitor, Dosmatic, is currently allowed a fact-based stub entry, it seems only fair that Dosatron be extended a similar priviledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenderGirl ( talk • contribs) 14:42, November 18, 2008

• Read WP:COI first, btw Endorse Deletion Secret ^account 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'm missing how the last deleted revision ( here, admin only link) was really at all spam, much less blatantly so. A stub and probably not notable, yes, but not spam. At the same time, I'm not sure that the nominator is necessarily the best person to write up a stable article (considering this is the account's first and only edit ever). I'd guess my "official" position in this specific case is to smack the deleter with a trout, and wait for a draft version. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Lifebaka, I would be more than happy to draft a page for mod approval prior to re-establishing this page; although I am not an established user, I can guarantee that my version will be neither spammish nor advertising. However, if you don't see anything wrong with the deleted version (which I cannot review, being a non-admin), I would suggest just re-instating the previous version. Also, if you'll forgive a newbie question -- what does it mean to "smack the deleted with a trout?" -- GardenderGirl 18:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• That was a typo. I've fixed it. It references WP:TROUT. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I would like to see a userspace draft (ideally from a user with a bit less of a WP:COI) before allowing recreation. Keep deleted pending that. Stifle ( talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Brando Advertising Agency (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Official website

In relation to the following discussion Brando Advertising Agency how can I proceed? I want to make changes to the article like you advised however the page has a protection lock on it so I am therefore unable to make the required edits to make the page acceptable to be displayed on Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do? Thank you for your time. Creativeboxes

• The deletion review remains open for five days. After that time, an uninvolved administrator will review the discussion and, if it supports restoring the page, will do so. Stifle ( talk) 09:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

File:TAMUQ_Profs_and_Students.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)| IfD)

This image was a photograph taken by someone with my group at Texas A&M Qatar after I asked him/her if they could take a picture of us using my camera. After taking the picture (and 2 others that didn't work out), my camera was handed back to me and I said, "Thanks" and was told "no problem". This image belongs to me and any reasonable person would say so, even under copyright law. Furthermore, there was never even an IfD discussion regarding it (at least none of which I was informed) — BQZip01 —  ^talk 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

This isn't the issue. The issue was that the image was tagged with a non-free content tag, not with PD-self, GFDL-self, or another free content tag. That tag was added by another user, not by BQZip01 himself, but BQZip edited the page plenty of times without ever reverting that tag. If you want to release the image into the public domain, under the GFDL, etc, that's fine and we can use it. If you don't, we can't. The reason the image was deleted is because it was tagged as a replaceable fair use image, not because I really care about the circumstances under which you, your friend, or anyone else took the photo. -- B ( talk) 02:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, I guess I misunderstood. Thanks for the fix! — BQZip01 —  ^talk 02:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply