Novak Druce + Quigg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

On the AFD page it was suggested the firm was not notable and did not have independent reliable sources. On the administrator's page User talk: Courcelles/Archive 41 several independent reliable sources were given demonstrating notability and extensive third party coverage of the firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.148.121 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• No word in bold from me yet because I'm still considering the matter, but I just wanted to say that I have notified the closer for you. The "independent reliable sources" provided were as follows: Fish, Novak Druce Pick Up Darby & Darby Attys-Law 360, Emcore Infringes Avago Fiber Optics Patent: ITC, Ahead of the Herd-Sarah Barrell Talks to Alumnus Greg Novak, CEO of Novak Druce + Quigg, About Patent Prosecution and his Passion for Water Buffalo. Page 6., ITC Bars Emcore From Selling Infringing Optoelectronics, Five Join Novak Druce After Stevens Davis Breakup, Novak Druce Opens New IP Office with Akerman Attys- Law 360, IP Today Top Patent Firms, IP Today Top Trademark Firms, WORLDleaders 2007, WORLDleaders 2008

  I must say that at first glance, it seems highly unlikely that a deletion review will give you the outcome you seek because the sources are all hosted on the page subject's website, which would seem to preclude the idea that they are independent. At first glance, I would think the best outcome for this DRV would be if you went away understanding why this article is unsatisfactory and in what circumstances it could reasonably be recreated. But I'll look into it in more detail and see what Courcelles says.— S Marshall T/ C 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

(Not !voting yet either; I am trying to learn DRV and would rather go slowly) Though they are all hosted by the subject, they do appear to be copies of material taken from independent sources - I've found copies of at least some of them hosted independently (e.g. here). However:

• "Law360" is a newswire site, so I doubt the material from there could be considered coverage in reliable sources.
• The two "IP Today" references are simply league tables mentioning the subject firm, which doesn't appear to amount to substantial coverage.
• Business at Oxford is the institutional magazine of the Oxford University Business School. The piece in there is relatively substantial, but it's also a profile of one of the partners as an alumnus of the business school. It may not therefore qualify as a publication independent of the subject.
• The "WORLDLeaders" pieces are taken from what appears to be an annual publication by IP World magazine, which seems itself to be the organizer of the awards (see here - the subject of the deleted article now actually sponsors one of these awards). Again, I don't think there's clearcut evidence of the independence of these sources.

So - like I say, I am new to DRV and apologise if an analysis like this wasn't appropriate for this forum. If the question is whether there is enough new evidence from reliable sources to merit relisting at AfD, I think the sources that have been supplied don't look like a smoking gun. Gonzonoir ( talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• History temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Note: The history is here.— S Marshall T/ C 21:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I don't see anything wrong with the close of the AfD. Deletion review is unnecessary when a user seeks to recreate an article with new sources. The anonymous editor who brought this review should read WP:RECREATE, ask for the article to be userfied, improve the article with sources, and then submit the article through WP:AFC. If the article is still inadequate, it can be brought to AfD again, the proper forum for duscussing whether new sources are adequate. -- Bsherr ( talk) 17:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

is that really simpler than just resotre & have the sources added? DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Simpler in the short run, no. Simpler in the longer run if we don't skip steps, yes. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, it's simpler for users to create well-sourced articles to begin with, simpler to bring up new sources at AfD, and simpler to ask for userfication and recreate the article instead of coming to DRV. Regrettably, simple options were not selected. DRV is about reviewing AfDs, and there's nothing wrong with the AfD of this article. Unlike DRV, determining whether an article is fit for recreation is one of the purposes of AfC, and I don't see why it shouldn't be so used. -- Bsherr ( talk) 22:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the deletion AfD close; do not allow recreation (yet) - The AfD closer was correct. The standard the DRV nominator needs to focus on is showing that (i) "significant new information has come to light since a deletion" that justifies allowing recreation of an article (ii) that will overcome the problems listed at the AfD discussion. The first portion (i) relates to the amount of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). Also, a problem noted the AfD was the use of non-Independent Reliable Sources. (The article looks as though Gregory Novak told one of his flunkies to "get me an article on Wikipedia.") This DRV: The new information presented in this discussion is difficult to evaluate as to whether it is coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Novak Druce + Quigg. Also, while new information has come to light in this DRV not considered at the AfD, that is being intermixed with non-Independent Reliable Sources. That makes it unlikely that allowing recreation would result in the problems listed at the AfD discussion being overcome. A best approach here is to create a draft article in user space, then present that draft article to DRV for review as to whether DRV should allow recreation of the article. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply

DRV does not review articles for recreation, WP:AFC does. If there is a concern about a recreated article, there's AfD. There is no speedy deletion criterion to delete a recreated article that is not a copy of a previously discussed article. -- Bsherr ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

With respect, by a very longstanding custom and practice, DRV clearly does review articles for recreation. This only happens where there's been a previous deletion and a user wishes to recreate: a common outcome is a request for a draft for review.— S Marshall T/ C 23:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

If it's done, it's purposeless and bureaucratic, insofar as no policy prohibits recreation of an article. -- Bsherr ( talk) 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, no, it's more complicated than that. Recreation of an article can be pointy and disruptive, when there's a consensus that the article should not exist (for example, at AfD). DRV controls the re-creation of certain contentious material that's been deleted in the past. I think that's reasonable and proportional.— S Marshall T/ C 14:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Except that AfD is perfectly capable of deciding that. Bringing a recreated article to AfD is the same thing as bringing a proposed article to DRV, except the former is consistent with policy, while the latter is not. Either can be just as "pointy". -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

And again as above. -- Bsherr ( talk) 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Mikie Da Poet ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Due to editor's claims that the artist did not fully meet the criteria, the previous deletion reviews were turned down. The page is being placed under 'speedy removal' without any consideration to policy. The following statement is taken directly from a Wikipedia criteria and a Wikipedia editor, from an earlier deletion:

• "The kind of independent reliable sources we'd need to justify the claims in this article would be things such as articles in culture- or music-oriented magazines, newspaper articles, mention in published books, newsmagazine articles, TV news segments, and the like."

The following is a TV news segment from Fox News, in which Mikie Da Poet performs a song and closes the show (4:32 mark of video) for platinum-selling hip hop group, Do or Die, who are also found to be notable by Wikipedia. [1]

• News anchor David Navarro calls Mikie Da Poet a "hot new star" (0:09 mark of video) and Fox also reports him to be "the new Eminem" according to fans and music critics. (4:32 mark of video)

Wikipedia, among others find Fox News to be notable, therefore Mikie Da Poet is notable.

• Mikie's song "Exploitation" is under license by 20/20 Media and has been used as the featured song in the upcoming film/documentary "Business As Usual: Exploitation of Hip Hop", starring Mekhi Phifer, Kanye West, Dr. Cornell West, Bobby Brown, and many more Wikipedia notables. [2] (Video at bottom of official site)
• [3] His name is mentioned in the credits at the conclusion of the trailer.
• IMDb page for the film, credits shown for Mikie Da Poet's composition and writing of the featured soundtrack. [4]

To sum up, based on Wikipedia criteria, the sources provided above should be more than enough to restore this page. Thank you for your time.

• Note: The history is here.-- PureSnipe T/ C 22:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted, looking at the numerous previous WP:DRV discussions, there does not appear to be anything new. The previous rationales appear to include the same video, which appears to be from a local FOX affiliate's morning show, not "the" FOX News... that notwithstanding, "Fox News [is] notable, therefore Mikie Da Poet is notable" holds no water. Nothing provided here seems to suggest undeletion of the deleted version of the article is warranted. A mention on the credits of an alleged documentary that "has an anticipated release date of Fall 2009" and is only sourceable to its own website and IMDb doesn't sway me. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Also, as this is DRV #6 and User:PureSnipe is a new account whose only edits are creating this DRV, this might be a disruptive DRV and a speedy close might be warranted. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 00:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

In the 2006 review, Wikipedia Editor advised that a restore would need "articles in culture- or music-oriented magazines, newspaper articles, mention in published books, newsmagazine articles, TV news segments, and the like. TV news segment doesnt say anything about "the" Fox News, Mikie Da Poet performed live and was given huge praise by Fox News, the news segment that covered that story covers the 3rd largest morning news area in America, so to call it local is to say that Fox is not notable, or the Million Chicago and Illinois viewers watching every morning are only getting local news? Are you saying that Fox anchor David Navarro and Tamron Hall only cover local news? Are you aware of the importance of that news segment and what it meant to the city of Chicago and the people? To say bringing cultures together and showing the world that whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all people can hold the same stage and cross genre dont hold water, them shame on you! Kinu, your editor in 2006 asked for a tv news segment, you guys got the longest live hip hop segment in the history of the news, broadcasted by Fox, this is an outrage and needs to be restored based the advise and information given in past reviews "2006" by your editors, and to ask for a speedy deletion or whatever you asked for, are just disrespectful bitter words, you guys made a mistake, now give Mikie his page, and allow the people to enjoy their heroes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover312 ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Another newly registered user who has managed to find DRV. Reported to WP:AN/I. And, to be succinct, there is no information provided that wasn't already in the article when it was deleted or that wasn't already considered in a previous deletion review discussion. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 02:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply