Manzie Johnson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Illegitimate A7 deletion. Article plainly stated that this jazz musician played with a host of luminaries, easily meeting notability guidelines; a reliable source was cited; the artist appears on WP:MET (indicating he has an article in the New Grove Encyclopedia of Jazz); and he's been dead for over thirty years. Please Restore. Chubbles ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Chubbles ( talk) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore. I can't see the page history from this so I'm not sure that the 27 February 2010 cache version is the same as the 19 March 2010 deleted version. But based on the cached version, there is a credible claim to significance or importance in the article arising from the subject's associations with notable artists. WP:MUSICBIO has no place in an A7 judgement. That is a matter for AfD. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, restore. Obviously meets musicbio criterion 6. One of the worst speedies I've seen so far; article included multiple assertions of significance. This one's going to WP:SNOW. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn notability/importance clearly asserted by all the name-dropping and the presence of interwiki links. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Claims of association with numerous notable musicians qualifies as a claim of significance, and linking to a bio on a reputable third-party website makes the claim quite credible. So A7 definitely doesn't apply, and I would hesitate even to put it to AFD. -- RL0919 ( talk) 06:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, per all of the above. This isn't even borderline. — David Levy 06:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Not an A7, would almost certainly pass an AFD, and Chubbles definitely knows their stuff on music topics. I trust Chubbles completely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There are hundreds of references for this topic. Colonel Warden ( talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Template:Otheruses3 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) ( TfD) ( RfD)

The typing of Otheruses3 will actually confuse people. The redirect is also confusing. 174.3.98.20 ( talk) 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I'm not sure if this DRV is meant to appeal the RFD for the redirect, or the TFD that led to it being redirected, or both. If it concerns the TFD, which I closed, I would point out that redirection was endorsed as either the preference or the acceptable second choice of all the editors who commented (other than the nom). It was also supported with sound arguments. With both numbers and argumentative weight, the consensus seemed very clear. If it concerns the RFD, which another admin closed, given that the RFD was opened just two days after the TFD was closed, a speedy keep at RFD seems entirely justified. And for what it is worth, the admin who closed the RFD has correctly interpreted the meaning of my close of the TFD. -- RL0919 ( talk) 05:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I speedily closed the RfD listing, which amounted to forum shopping—a second attempt to achieve the deletion that was decided against at TfD (with clear consensus to redirect). It also was based upon a misinterpretation of the TfD closer's statement (as confirmed by RL0919 above).
  Like RL0919, I don't know which closure 174.3.98.20 is contesting. His/her rationale refers to neither and appears to be based entirely upon the opinion that the redirect should be deleted (without any explanation of how it's "confusing"). — David Levy 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I disagree that it was forum shopping. I think the main idea of the TfD was "we don't need this template. Don't delete now because it's not orphan and probably some editors still use it". My experience says that otheruses3 is not actually used and names like that (with numbers) are confussing. Since, we both side are assuming based on own experiences, the best strategy is to wait and see who's gonna use it in the short future. I still believe there was no reason for speedy keep, we could wait 7 days to see what the people who proposed "delete or redirect" would say and that was a reason that I sent it for RfD. PS Just in case: I am not related iwth the anonoymous IP above. Personally, after the speedy close I was planning to sent it to RfD in some weeks after we have more data to judge. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  The consensus was to create a redirect instead of deleting. You then went to another forum almost immediately and proposed that the redirect be deleted, in part because you misinterpreted the closer's statement (regarding the likelihood that editors will continue to use the template) as a reference to the revision history. You made no mention of the TfD discussion that had just concluded. You noted that the redirect was an orphan in the article namespace, and you didn't disclose that this was because you'd just orphaned it with a bot.
  And to what end? Neither you nor 174.3.98.20 has explained how the redirect is "confusing." You've claimed that such redirects usually are deleted, which simply isn't accurate. When longstanding, widely used templates have their functionality merged into other templates (often enabled by code that didn't exist when the templates were created), the standard procedure is to redirect. You haven't explained what harm you believe this causes.
  You say that your "experience says that otheruses3 is not actually used," but you know perfectly well that it was used on more than 2,000 pages until you deployed a bot to orphan it (despite explicit feedback at TfD that this should not be done, along with a closure that rendered it inappropriate). You then listed the redirect at RfD without waiting to see whether it remained in use (though I personally consider this largely irrelevant, as the redirect is harmless and helpful if even one person uses it at some point in the distant future). — David Levy 15:37/15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse TfD and RfD. I too am not entirely sure what this DRV is requesting, but I endorse both closures. Had I seen the answer to my clarification request before the RfD was speedily closed I would have recommended keeping it (I wasn't aware of the preceding TfD), both for the "non-trivial" edit history and for the fact that the otherusesN templates were around for a very long time before they were mostly tidied up (AIUI the advanced template syntax now used didn't exist when they were originally created). Over the years I've done a lot of tidying of hatnotes, and so I learned which otherusesN template I needed in various scenarios, and I would be surprised if I am alone in that. An outcome of redirect was clearly supported by consensus at the TfD and so nominating the resultant redirect for deletion a handful of days later is not really abiding by the spirit of that outcome. I've got no prejudice against a repeat nomination at RfD in a few months time when we can judge how much use the redirected template is getting and whether the edit history is worth keeping in some form or not, but 3 days is much too soon. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I endorse the TfD too but for the RfD instead of speedy close David Levy could just oppose my RfD writing the things he write abive instead of speedy closing. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Again, the issue was that the listing itself was inappropriate (for the reasons cited above). — David Levy 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse both the TfD and RfD closures. During the TfD multiple editors specifically recommended against using a bot to orphan this, but it seems that one was run anyway. Bots are supposed to be used for tasks that are non-controversial or have consensus, this case doesn't seem to fit that description. DES ^(talk) 01:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Waruch ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I request userification. The conclusion of the {{ afd}} was " The result of the debate was merge to Edward L. Richmond (Pfc) then delete." Well, the target of the merge was just nominated for deletion itself. One of the suggestions there is an article on the incident. I'd like to review the revision history of Jeffrey Waruch in order to have a more fully informed discussion of an article about "the incident". I request the full revision history be userified to User:Geo Swan/look/Jeffrey Waruch. Geo Swan ( talk) 07:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps I should have noted -- I didn't ask the concluding administrator to userify this article because they haven't participated on the wikipedia since 2007. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Userfy as requested. I would do it myself, but since I am the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward L. Richmond Jr., it could be considered a COI. -- RL0919 ( talk) 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Userfied. I've restored the content to User:Geo Swan/look/Jeffrey Waruch per your request. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Tham Fook Cheong ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hey there =) First of all, I would like to thank you all for all your sincere contributions to wikipedia. About the deletation of Master Tham Fook Cheong, I hope you can re-investigate his information. I am from Malaysia and I had heard about Master Tham for a very long time. He was really famous and had received a Medal of honor by the Sultan of Perak (King Azlan Shah) for his contributions. He deserves to be in wikipedia to be recognize as he had fulfilled the Requirements of WP:BIO. By the way, i had read the deletation log's discussion and found out that there are some wrong researches. i just searched through Master Tham's website and there are a lot of facts and he did not sell snake oil as described by Philip. I think he mixed up Master Stanley tham frm Singapore with Master Stanley Tham Fook Cheong from Malaysia. Master Stanley Tham Fook Cheong frm Malaysia had a lot of proven records and testimonials. there are also a lot of news that had proven he is famous in Malaysia. That's a support to the first point-Notable People In Malaysia and is the reason he qualifies for a page in Wikipedia like other notable people. I had also read about the Purpose of advertsing. He was already famous and had appeared in numerous interviews and television programmes and it don't seemed as he tried to advertise here. I really hope you can revive Master Tham's page. Thank You for your kind attention 60.48.245.64 ( talk) 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse unless significant new sources can be put forward (preferably in a userspace draft). The last proper AfD for this was in 2008. There was a reasonably fulsome discussion of the subject's coverage in sources there, the consensus being that the coverage was insufficient. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse unless new sources are found and provided, as per Mkativerata. If the OP really thinks that a proper articel can be written to show notability, I strongly urge creating a userspace draft, and asking for feedback when it is ready. Published reliable sources will surely be needed tio make a valid article. DES ^(talk) 01:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• endorse The nomination is basically by assertion and a decent userspace draft backed up by multiple reliable sources is the way forward with this article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply