|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Global Underwater Explorers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) Article was created and was immediately listed for a speedy delete (most likely on the basis that it had been deleted on 4 previous occasions). {{Hangon}} tag was put on the article, and some preliminary arguments for the keep listed on the talk page, but that notwithstanding it was deleted within an hour and a half. Tried to resolve with Admin, he is travelleing, but he agreed in principal with it going through deletion review, although he stands by his original decision. Sound reasons why it should at least go through the AfD process. Amongst the List of diver training organizations, GUE is the third largest (arguable second largest) technical diver training organisation - it seems incongruous that the two above it and organisations below it should have articles, but it is not notable enough for one itself. Even a simple Google search reveals at least a basic level of notability. Qualifications: I accept the stub that I created wasn't a very good one - not really my field - I thought it needed at least a stub because of the number of related redlinks. Not clear why it was deleted on several prior occasions; spamming by people connected with organisation? But I do think it deserves an article, and should at least should have gone through a formal AfD review. Assuming we get that far, I will marshall up some better third party sources to indicate why I think it should not be deleted -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
|
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. |
Doctor Steel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) See also
Examples of spamdalism:
Previous reviews
This might run a bit long. Anyway, I was looking through a band's website that my friend recommended to me and I noticed a thread on their attempts to get a Wikipedia article about themselves, which was speedily deleted through WP:CSD/A7. Now, the manner in which this artist's fans tried to restore their article was not the best; I believe they attempted to recreate their article multiple times instead of going to DRV, if what I've figured out is correct. Anyways, the article as last published according to deletionpedia fell nowhere near A7. A7 demands that bands assert notability, which the articlemakers clearly did, citing multiple independent, reliable sources. A Second AFD run or different CSD criterion would have been better Regardless of the method of deletion, I don't think this article would even fail AFD if presented there. There are several independent sources confirming his existence and key details about his music. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Note: While this was one of many reasons I decided to try and come back to Wikipedia, I didn't rejoin with the sole intention of posting a DRV for a band. Chris Picone! 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Note Again: For WP:COI reasons as well as to prevent anything ugly from happening, I've asked the community "involved" with the once-constant recreation of the article to refrain from posting "votes" here, as they probably have nothing to add related to Wikipedia policy. Chris Picone! 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
|
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. |
Global Underwater Explorers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) Article was created and was immediately listed for a speedy delete (most likely on the basis that it had been deleted on 4 previous occasions). {{Hangon}} tag was put on the article, and some preliminary arguments for the keep listed on the talk page, but that notwithstanding it was deleted within an hour and a half. Tried to resolve with Admin, he is travelleing, but he agreed in principal with it going through deletion review, although he stands by his original decision. Sound reasons why it should at least go through the AfD process. Amongst the List of diver training organizations, GUE is the third largest (arguable second largest) technical diver training organisation - it seems incongruous that the two above it and organisations below it should have articles, but it is not notable enough for one itself. Even a simple Google search reveals at least a basic level of notability. Qualifications: I accept the stub that I created wasn't a very good one - not really my field - I thought it needed at least a stub because of the number of related redlinks. Not clear why it was deleted on several prior occasions; spamming by people connected with organisation? But I do think it deserves an article, and should at least should have gone through a formal AfD review. Assuming we get that far, I will marshall up some better third party sources to indicate why I think it should not be deleted -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
|
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. |
Doctor Steel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) See also
Examples of spamdalism:
Previous reviews
This might run a bit long. Anyway, I was looking through a band's website that my friend recommended to me and I noticed a thread on their attempts to get a Wikipedia article about themselves, which was speedily deleted through WP:CSD/A7. Now, the manner in which this artist's fans tried to restore their article was not the best; I believe they attempted to recreate their article multiple times instead of going to DRV, if what I've figured out is correct. Anyways, the article as last published according to deletionpedia fell nowhere near A7. A7 demands that bands assert notability, which the articlemakers clearly did, citing multiple independent, reliable sources. A Second AFD run or different CSD criterion would have been better Regardless of the method of deletion, I don't think this article would even fail AFD if presented there. There are several independent sources confirming his existence and key details about his music. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Note: While this was one of many reasons I decided to try and come back to Wikipedia, I didn't rejoin with the sole intention of posting a DRV for a band. Chris Picone! 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Note Again: For WP:COI reasons as well as to prevent anything ugly from happening, I've asked the community "involved" with the once-constant recreation of the article to refrain from posting "votes" here, as they probably have nothing to add related to Wikipedia policy. Chris Picone! 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |