Matt Lee (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Sockpuppetry. Three "keeps" by Guitaro99 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or his IPs [1] [2]. No reliable sources at all (not even the rollingstones.com one). Only other "keep" refers to the number of references as a reason to keep, but since none of the refs are anything but band websites none of them pass WP:RS or WP:N. I am seeking to overturn the keep and delete this article because the AfD clearly gave NO valid reason to keep this. - Nard 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

First of all ,no sockpuppetry. I was inputting from work. Second, it's not the rollingstones.com, it's rollingstone magazine.com . The bikini island (major movie) imdb site clearly states that Mr.Lee and his partner Mr. Reese have a song called Shot Down published in the movie under the FAQ section on the first page of the site.Also , as Mr. Lee's career moves further this year, he will have more info for me to input to this site. He has an album w/ the D.I.'s coming out in november on Hepcat Records. The same label as Britney Spears and the Stray Cats. There is a "Keep" from ukexpat that refs are showing notability. Mr. Lee's bands are listed in wikipedia with the same notes and articles as well.Particularly,The Divine Horsemen and Julie Christensen. All the records listed are published and available works. The D.I.'s Lock 'n Load is going to be back on the racks in the new Hepcat release as well.I believe that the request to delete the article has not been researched. Especially because that user identified the one single thing they looked up as rollingstones.com . That was never included in the refs. It was listed as rollingstone magazine.com and has several refs listed throughout the article. I am D. Schneider@work.( 69.231.50.49 ( talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

One other thing. Wiki assessment already looked into this matter and it looked clear. D.Schneider( 69.231.50.49 ( talk) 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

• Note, the above IP has been blocked for a week for sockpuppetry. - Nard 00:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete, too much weight given to new and unregistered users. Stifle ( talk) 09:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist, quite clearly most of those keep votes should have been disregarded, but without them I still don't think there was enough discussion to assume a consensus to delete had been established. More eyes on it couldn't hurt. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC). reply
• Overturn and relist Good reasons have been provided for why the original discussion was flawed but I am wary of just assuming a consensus for deletion from the remainder of the discussion so would prefer a relist. Davewild ( talk) 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - the new users are questionable and their arguments weren't that great. The article *looks* well sourced, but I don't think the sources are really that solid, so this needs more discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - as the original nom I think more eyes on it would be beneficial. There are plenty of notability claims and experienced editors need to weigh in. Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 19:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Father Time (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Back in July, I AFD'ed this article because it violated WP:CRYSTAL. The album's page didn't contain cover art, a track listing, or anything else; furthermore, given that the artist in question ( Hal Ketchum) is on Curb Records, I had a feeling that the album would be repeatedly delayed, as was his last album. However, sources like this and this verify that the album has indeed been released. I don't want to step on anyone's toes by simply re-creating the page, so I thought I'd DRV this instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Recreate and restore history if requested. Concerns raised in the AFD were primarily about WP:CRYSTAL with notability being a secondary concern. The links above seem to address both concerns so see no reason why an article should not be recreated. Davewild ( talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Recreate, then restore history. Agree with Davewild that concerns raised in the AfD have been resolved. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Blendon and Penhill (ward) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Wikipedia Notability

Wikipedia:Notability

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

• Blendon and Penhill residents and business association
• Conservative party events in Blendon and Penhill ward
• Statistics
• Councillors
• Cllr Graham D'Amiral's Facebook listing
• Councillors directory
• Cllr Graham D'Amiral quoted in the Sun national newspaper

Jed keenan ( talk) 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'm going to have to go overturn on this one; it was deleted as an A7 bio, when the article was obviously not about a person, but a geographical location. Whether the area is notable enough for an article or not is something that should be decided through an AFD, as it's not a speedy candidate under any of the criteria, that I'm aware of, at any rate. Unless, of course, I'm reading it entirely wrong and it's actually about a political segmentation or something, but even then it would seem to be outside of the speedy criteria. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn An electoral ward does not fit any of the A7 speedy criteria. Davewild ( talk) 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn it isn't about a person, group of people, company or other organisation, band or web content, so A7 does not apply. Hut 8.5 17:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as not fitting into an A7 category. Stifle ( talk) 18:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment In deleting the article I viewed it as being about the elected Councillors rather than the geographical location, whereupon A7 would apply. But as I have said to the author, I would not argue if consensus deemed otherwise. -- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as an invalid CSD A7. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC). reply
• Comment Winning a first wiki debate feels great, better than authoring such a short, dull page. Thanks to all above, and to Anthony for the chance to learn a few more of the ropes. Jed keenan ( talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

P. S. I Loathe You (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Deleted 6 months ago, book has been announced. [3] see second link. Series is one of the most popular for young people. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• As long as the new version solves the problems that caused the deletion last time, you don't need a DRV for this. Just as any admin to userify it for you, add the new information and sources, and ask them (or any other admin) if that satisfies the previous deletion. Then they (or you) can move it into mainspace. Protonk ( talk) 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It did, with sources and everything, and it got deleted anyway. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, I see. Wait. you had a version userified and then asked some third party if it looked good enough to not meet CSD G4 and then moved that to an article space and it still got deleted? Protonk ( talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse complete content was, "P. S. I Loathe You is the tenth book in the bestselling The Clique series by Lisi Harrison. The book is scheduled for release in February of 2009." plus an infobox. That doesn't assert notability. Simple annoucement of existence does not confer notability. TravellingCari 04:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Here are the deletion logs:

• Deleted 21:30 19 Feb. 2008 at AfD.
• Deleted 22:45 19 Feb. 2008 per WP:CSD#A1, insufficient context.
• Deleted 23:48 20 Feb. 2008 per WP:CSD#A1, insufficient context.
• Deleted 22:52 8 Sept. 2008 per WP:CSD#G4, continued recreation of deleted material.

The book is non-existent and won't be published until next year. It was a one-liner article that read, "Series X is a best seller, therefore this book is notable because of the supposed connection." No sources, insufficient context. seicer | talk | contribs 04:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Nothing here shows any reason why the previous consensus at the AFD should be ignored. Stifle ( talk) 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per WP:BK#Not yet published books. JohnCD ( talk) 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion crystal ballery and notions of inherited notability are not sufficient to provide context for notability per WP:N. The deleting admin got it right. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per the kangaroo. No sources yet, it's still WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Just wait until it's published. it will then probably get reviews, and probably be notable. This is analogous to future films. DGG ( talk) 00:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply