LA Direct Models (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Article was speedy deleted as a non-notable company, despite having a couple of reliable, independent sources and further coverage linked to in the external links section. The article should at least be taken to AfD. Epbr123 ( talk) 03:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• OverturnAbstain now Endorse. Disclaimer: I can't see the deleted article.. A search of the web suggests the company is reasonably well established and but reliable sources are probably not obtainable. Hard to tell for sure as I don't really know which "porn" journals are reliable. Worth an AfD instead. Found only one source after more than an hour of searching and that's about the owner, not the company [1]. Sorry for time wasting! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • But the article itself had 8 sources [2]. Even more sources are found here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Epbr123 ( talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The DRV is just to examine the deletion process really and IMO it's been properly applied, hence my endorse. The article can always be recreated with the sources. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The deleted article met the requirements of CSD:A7 in that it did not make any assertion as to the significance or importance of the company. As ever, a speedy deletion is not permanent, and anyone wishing to recreate the article including proper details of how the company is notable can go right ahead. Stifle ( talk) 13:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • According to WP:N, a subject with reliable, independent coverage is considered notable. An article shouldn't have to be laced with peacock terms to avoid speedy deletion. Epbr123 ( talk) 13:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • As to sourcing, "xbiz.com" is a reliable source? That was the only source cited. And I repeat: there was nothing resembling an assertion of notability. Endorse my own action. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

      What would have resembled an assertion of notability? Something like "LA Direct Models is the world's greatest talent agency"? There is consensus at WikiProject Pornography that xbiz.com is reliable, plus there were links to coverage at AVN.com, which is undeniably reliable. Epbr123 ( talk) 19:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• An assertion of notability would be something like "LA Direct Models is the largest adult modeling agency in the United States" (a claim made in this article, although this article in and of itself would not satisfy WP:N since it's not substantively about the company). Otto4711 ( talk) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• From my understanding of WP:N, a subject is notable if it has reliable independent coverage. Nowhere does it say articles have to contain certain sentences. The article did contain reliable independent sources; if their reliabilty is disputed, they should be debated at an AfD. Epbr123 ( talk) 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I did not say that articles had to contain specific sentences. They do have to contain some reason why the subject is notable, and that reason needs to be supported by reliable sources. The article as it existed stated that this is an adult modeling agency, stated who founded it and when. Nothing here to support a claim that this agency is any different from any other agency. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Where in WP:N does it say the article has to explain how the agency is different from any other agency? Having media coverage is what asserts its notability. Epbr123 ( talk) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oh for fuck's sake. Yes, the guideline WP:N does set out notability guidelines. However, the policy Wikipedia:CSD#Articles (which trumps guideline) states that an article may be deleted without discussion if the article is "about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." (emphasis in original) It goes on to explain that "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." (emphasis added) The article that was deleted did not give a reasonable indication as to why LA Direct Models might be notable. In the time you've spent arguing here you could have written a brief article that includes a reasonable indication of why LA Direct Models might be notable. I've spoon-fed you an example of a reasonable indication as to why it might be notable. Why not just go write the article if you feel so strongly that the agency is notable? Otto4711 ( talk) 04:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• That policy also states that the CSD criteria is a lower standard than WP:N. Therefore we shouldn't be speedy deleting articles that pass WP:N. What I feel strongly about is articles being incorrectly speedy deleted. If I was a newbie I wouldn't be sticking around to make an improved article. Epbr123 ( talk) 11:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• If you were a newbie you could be forgiven for not understanding that an article has to include something that explains why the subject is important. But OK, you go right along shouting at the rain instead of, you know, actually writing an article that passes policy. Christ, by now you could've even copied and pasted the assertion of notability I gave you. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I have nothing else to add now. You guys can keep deleting articles against policy if you wish. I've tried my best. Epbr123 ( talk) 12:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• • • • Hi, I'm not disputing what you say regarding the article content (esp. as I can't see it). My view from a fairly brief Google was that there were a large number of (albeit probably unreliable) sources for this company. However, some of them seemed more credible so I felt it was likely that some would be reliable. Although I was reluctant to explore them too deeply given the subject matter! Anyway, given the views expressed on the actual content I'm abstaining now as I don't feel qualified to comment further. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 15:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 ( talk) 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if no one presents WP:IS WP:RS. Tosqueira ( talk) 18:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restored for deletion review. Protonk ( talk) 19:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a perfectly valid A7. No assertion of notability, and the only "source" was flaky at best. If sources do exist concerning this company, then the article can be recreated from the ground up without any need for undeletion. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC). reply
  • Why is XBiz.com an unreliable source? Because it reports on pornography? Epbr123 ( talk) 01:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It may very well be staffed by people with the highest journalistic ethics (I am not going to click on the link to check from this computer to check), but I am wary of mysterious sites I've never heard of. This still does not address the total lack of any assertions of authority. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 06:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC). reply
      • Meeting WP:N is an assertion of authority. As the CSD criteria states, CSD is a lower standard than WP:N. If there are doubts about the reliability of sources, AfD is the place to debate them. Articles shouldn't be speedied just because someone hasn't heard of their source. Epbr123 ( talk) 09:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete; there was an assertion of importance, and we have a (not great) article about XBIZ that explains what it is. -- NE2 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:HOLE. Even pure WP:N, there's only articles from XBIZ here, and they read like the standard filler for a slow news day. I certainly wouldn't interpret WP:N to mean that every small business that gets a couple of articles in the local or subject-specific paper is notable.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 06:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'd like to remind everyone of this part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If a page has been speedily deleted and there is good-faith disagreement over whether or not it should have been, the page should be restored immediately and the page nominated for deletion discussion to determine the community consensus." Epbr123 ( talk) 11:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• And...um...the page has been restored and we are having a deletion discussion. What's your point? Otto4711 ( talk) 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• "Deletion discussion" means AfD. Epbr123 ( talk) 21:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• It's generally considered pointless to restore a page that will immediately be deleted at AfD. There was nothing on that page that didn't make it a valid CSD deletion.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 22:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• It's unlikely to be deleted at AfD. AfDs tend to focus on source availability, rather than personal opinions on what counts as an assertion of notability. It's been proven that reliable sources exist for this subject. Epbr123 ( talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Has now played a senior game ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/7697249.stm) Kingjamie ( talk) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

This was a biography stub page. Original AfD was requested by an invalid user with no contributions at all. The user had completely disappeared and it looks very suspicious. There are still six active red links to this biography stub. Fuzzy ( talk) 13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Disclaimer - I can't read the article. Even if the original nomination was bad faith, the consensus to delete was clear and in good faith. Regarding the six red links - pretty much they are within references to papers Dunkleman co-authored and are not instrinsic to the article. IMO. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 15:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. As the closing admin said, recreation is welcome when notability is established. And for the record, unless you get banned, there -are- no "invalid users". -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is a solid deletion following an unremarkable AFD. If the DRV nominator wishes to userfy and improve I am sure we will move it to his user space. In fact, the closing admin would likely have already done so if asked. JodyB _talk 21:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Once a regular user supports the deletion of an article, any arguments as to the good, bad, or indifferent faith of the nominator are moot. No other closure would have been any way sensible. Stifle ( talk) 22:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Remark. I'm not going to write Orr Dunkelman's bio, as I don't know him (I know Eli Biham, and following a links I saw that Orr Dunkelman article was erased, while I remembered it was there last time I read it). Keeper76, the admin who erased the article, is in a long wikibreak, and I could not contact him and query the deletion. The problem I had with the deletion was that the RfD was issued by what looks as a sock puppet. Since I cannot read the deleted article, I cannot comment on notability. Usually after deletion the "what links here" articles should be fixed, and a red link arose my suspicion and was the reason for this DRV. There is a bot that should take care of those things IIRC. Fuzzy ( talk) 14:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Sockpuppets are allowed. The question is, if this user was a sockpuppet, was it one that was acting contrary to policy? I don't see any evidence that they were. Looks to me like a reader saw an article they thought should be deleted and created an account to do it. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 19:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Notability proven by adding reliable sources; nominating editors did not reply to comments before closing admin deleted the page; admin was unwilling to reconsider their decision and suggested the listing here. • Freechild 'sup? 06:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. I have temporarily restored the article to allow review of the sources for deletion review. However, the Articles for deletion was a judgment call as to the subject's notability, and the consensus was against his notability, so I believe the deletion was closed correctly. Looking at the sources, the subject is verifiable as an associate professor and trombonist, but the sources don't clearly establish notability either as a academic or as a musician. For example, his "contributions to the field of multiphonics" are cited only to another person's doctoral dissertation citing the subject's master's thesis. The dissertation, in turn, only includes a single sentence that refers to the subject. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Move to user space: Delete from main site, but save in user space. There is not very much here yet. The article needs improvement and very much more information of concise nature to substantiate the notability of the subject. For example there is no timeline, there are almost no dates. Additionally even if the article is improved and resubmitted, the notability might still not be significant. There is no way to know without properly citing why the subject is notable. What are the subject's fields of research? What ground has been broken, specifically? What projects have been completed, and how many, what were they, and when, what dates? It's a good assumption that his thesis and published papers need to be directly referenced here. There needs to be a bibliography of his publishings, at least. The list of references do not presently include even one published paper by the subject of the article. VictorC ( talk) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the outcome of the AFD discussion, with which I am satisfied. No objection to userfication. Stifle ( talk) 12:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  Note: Don't bother moving it to my userspace - I'm not that invested. Rather, as an inclusionist I believe every topic should get a fair shake, and that's all I was calling for. • Freechild 'sup? 14:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - the article does nothing to affirm any level of notability, and I don't see the subject meeting WP:PROF or WP:MUSIC as noted above. The closing admin's decision appears to have been a reasonable interpretation. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and recommend terminating this discussion and deleting article based upon the nominator's comment above. JodyB _talk 22:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Page has been revised to eliminate bias. Facts are supported by references. Admin suggested posting to WP:DRV Refugeoftheroads ( talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• • See User:Refugeoftheroads/Nepalese_Youth_Opportunity_Foundation for the proposed draft. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I am happy to support the recreated version. Inasmuch as this was a speedy delete and the article has changed I think it can be moved now. In fact, not sure I would have speedied this one if I am reading it correctly. JodyB _talk 22:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• What needs to happen to determine if this should move to mainspace? I'm new here, and I don't know the process. Thanks for understanding. Refugeoftheroads _talk 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply